SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241613. November 5, 2018.]
SPOUSES ARNULFO A. CERVANTES AND GEMMA C. CERVANTES, petitioners, vs.SPOUSES DEOGRACIAS A. AJERO AND NIDA B. AJERO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 05 November 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241613 (Spouses Arnulfo A. Cervantes and Gemma C. Cervantes v. Spouses Deogracias A. Ajero and Nida B. Ajero)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the February 27, 2018 Decision 2 and the August 8, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 146552 for failure of petitioners Spouses Arnulfo A. Cervantes and Gemma C. Cervantes (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in ejecting them from the subject lot 4 in favor of respondents Deogracias A. Ajero and Nida B. Ajero (respondents).
As correctly ruled by the CA, respondents have properly alleged and proven the elements of a forcible entry case, 5 as they were able to show that: (a) their predecessor-in-interest, Santos B. Añonuevo, had prior physical possession of the subject lot and they were able to continue such possession after purchasing said lot from him; 6 (b) sometime in July 2015, petitioners effectively dispossessed them of the subject lot when the former, through threats and intimidation, prevented them from exercising acts of dominion over the subject lot, 7i.e., fencing the same; 8 and (c) respondents filed the instant forcible entry suit on September 7, 2015, within one (1) year from such dispossession. 9 It is settled that factual findings of the trial courts, when affirmed by the CA, are generally deemed final and conclusive, 10 as in this case. CAIHTE
SO ORDERED." (REYES, J., JR., J., designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018; on official leave.)
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 11-29.
2.Id. at 34-43. Penned by Associate Justice Socorro B. Inting with Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Rafael Antonio M. Santos, concurring.
3.Id. at 53-54. Penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. with Associate Justices Jhosep Y. Lopez and Rafael Antonio M. Santos, concurring.
4. See Sketch Plan, id. at 95-96.
5. For a forcible entry suit to prosper, the plaintiff must allege and prove: (1) prior physical possession of the property; and (2) unlawful deprivation of it by the defendant through force, intimidation, strategy, threat or stealth; and (3) the suit is filed within one (1) year from dispossession. (See Nenita Quality Foods Corporation v. Galabo, 702 Phil. 506, 518-519 (2013), citing Gonzaga v. CA, 570 Phil. 130, 138-139 (2008). See also rollo, p. 39.
6. See rollo, pp. 40-41.
7. See id. at 40.
8. See id. at 36.
9.Id. at 87-89.
10. See International Academy of Management and Economics (I/AME) v. Litton and Company, Inc., G.R. No. 191525, December 13, 2017, citing Lorenzana v. Lelina, 736 Phil. 271, 280 (2016).